New 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS extended length pic

[Tom Wertman]

http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2010-08/26/EOS60D-113_L.jpg<br itxtvisited="1" />


For those of us hoping it didn't extend. But as some pointed out, reading the specs said it had to.

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks for the visual confirmation, Tom! Looking at the image in the original Canon information, I guessed (hoped?) that the white inner ring just around the black innermost ring meant the extending portion of the barrel was white. Not that looks matter that much, but a black extension would have looked a little silly, IMO. More importantly, since the extending portion looks to be metal like the outer barrel, that speaks highly for the durability of the lens (also explains some of the weight).


Doing a little digging turned up another couple of images of a pre-production lens, one showing the extended zoom, another confirming the existence of a zoom lock. I wonder if it locks only in the retracted position like the black 70-300mm lenses, or if it can lock at any point in the zoom range...

[Mark Elberson]

<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';"]What's up with the focus ring being closer to the body and the zoom ring being closer to the front optic? Generally "L" lenses are configured in reverse fashion. It's not the biggest deal in the world but I do appreciate continuity in ergonomics when shooting lens to lens...<o></o>

[neuroanatomist]

What's up with the focus ring being closer to the body and the zoom ring being closer to the front optic? Generally "L" lenses are configured in reverse fashion. It's not the biggest deal in the world but I do appreciate continuity in ergonomics when shooting lens to lens...

Yeah - it takes a little getting used to. I have that same issue when I change back and forth between my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and my EF 24-105mm f/4<span style="color: red;"]L IS.


Perhaps it was a marketing decision - in Canon's 'Lens Positioning Article' they state, "While it&rsquo;s a great match for full-frame cameras, like the EOS 5D Mark II, this lens really comes into its own when used with an APS-C size sensor camera, like the EOS 60D or 7D, or a Rebel series digital SLR." So, the market they're targeting with this lens seems to be people who will probably be used to lenses where the zoom ring is toward the end of the lens. Then again, perhapsthe design was constrained bythe floating element rear-focusing system, requiring the MF ring to be physically close to those elements.

[Mark Elberson]

<span style="font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif';"]Any idea of where the f-stop changes based on focal length? If it retains an f/4 anywhere close to 200mm it's really going to give the EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L ISa run for its money based on the MTF charts. Its deficiency being10.3 oz of additional heft and extending zoom but what you gain is a 50% increase in focal length and of course it's also 1.71'' shorter when retracted.<o></o>

[neuroanatomist]

I suppose there's no way to know for sure until some reviews come in. Based on the aperture change points for the current 70-300mm DO and non-DO, and the 100-400mm in terms of percent of zoom where the aperture shifts, I'd guess the new 70-200mm will be at f/4.5 before 100mm, at f/5 well before 200mm, and drop to f/5.6 a little after 200mm.

[elmo_2006]

LOL, going to have to get use to a white lens with no tripod ringmount, maybe they should have left itin black.

[Kayaker72]

I suppose there's no way to know for sure until some reviews come in. Based on the aperture change points for the current 70-300mm DO and non-DO, and the 100-400mm in terms of percent of zoom where the aperture shifts, I'd guess the new 70-200mm will be at f/4.5 before 100mm, at f/5 well before 200mm, and drop to f/5.6 a little after 200mm.

Hi John,


I've also noticed that the 70-300 mm L requires a 67 mm filter whereas the 70-300 mm DO requires a 58 mm filter. Do you think this could impact the aperture ranges ofthe70-300L?


Granted, anything better than what you've outlined is probably a little optimistic.


Brant

[neuroanatomist]

I've also noticed that the 70-300 mm L requires a 67 mm filter whereas the 70-300 mm DO requires a 58 mm filter. Do you think this could impact the aperture ranges ofthe70-300L?

I doubt it. The main difference between the new 70-300mm L and the 70-300mm DO is that the new lens starts at f/4 (like the old non-DO), whereas the DO lens starts one-third stop narrower at f/4.5 - that sort of shifts the transitions (since the DO has only 2/3-stop variation, while the other two vary over a full stop).

[HDNitehawk]

LOL, going to have to get use to a white lens with no tripod ringmount, maybe they should have left itin black.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

The canon web site list the tripod ring as an accessory. I bet it comes with one, a hood and carrying case as well. In case it doesn't come with it, you could always take your tripod ring off your white glass and practice so that you are ready for it.